ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Impact of Light Conditions on Visual Performance following Premium Pseudophakic Presbyopia Corrections.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting the Visual Acuity Curves. A Proposed Methodology for the Evaluation of Postoperative Visual Acuity in Presbyopia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to objectively compare the visual performance of patients following premium pseudophakic presbyopia corrections in different light combinations for near- and intermediate-vision activities of daily living (ADLs). This is a prospective, comparative study. A total of 75 patients populated three study groups: G1-patients with bilateral trifocal implantation, G2-patients with bilateral bifocal implantation, and G3-patients with bilateral monofocal implantation. All participants addressed 10 ADLs in nine combinations of light temperature (3000 K, 4000 K, and 6000 K) and light intensity (25 fc, 50 fc, and 75 fc) and declared their subjectively optimal light combination while reading. G2 and G3 had the best total ADL scores in 6000 K/75 fc, while G1 had the best total ADL score in 4000 K/75 fc. Total ADL, easy ADL, and moderate difficulty ADL scores were significantly better in G2, while difficult ADL score was significantly better in G1. The majority of all groups selected 6000 K/75 fc as the most comfortable light combination, and no group selected 3000 K and 25 fc. In conclusion, trifocal patients benefit from intense daylight, while bifocal and monofocal patients benefit from intense, cold lighting. Trifocal patients present superior near-vision capacity in difficult near-vision daily tasks, while bifocal patients present superiority in easy and moderate-difficulty ADLs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.